Topic: If bitcoin ever goes mainstream - page 22. (Read 29054 times)
Problem is that when Bitcoin gets too big, we'll have no say in big decisions. You'll literally see the UN general assembly decide Bitcoin's way forward.
Power never disappear it just shift from some hands to others. I don't like power, including political power, but I dislike even more private power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
We both come from different ends of an underlying paradigm. I believe that the vast majority of people by nature are good and decent creatures. You seem to believe that we are all savages and that only bureaucratic power stands between us and worldwide mayhem.
We don't have to believe everyone is bad or even that the majority isn't very good (this majority lived happily for thousands of years with slavery, in Rome went to the Coliseum to watch people being slew, studies show that the majority of us can still torture under orders to do it, etc.) to predict a world of chaos. 20% mean and armed are enough.
Power never disappear it just shift from some hands to others. I don't like power, including political power, but I dislike even more private power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
This is kind of going off topic but...anarchy does work,but on the small scale. Like a small community of a few hundreds or thousand, because you don't have enough bad apples to fuck everyone else over. But yes when we try to live in societies of millions of people, anarchy isn't very effective. In the end, we will always choose to enter what is called the social contract and give up some of our rights so that society has some semblance of order and basic equality.
It makes opting out really tough as well. I live in a town of 2500 and could easily move if I didn't like the way they did things. It is a lot tougher and expensive to leave the US if I wanted to do so.
Power never disappear it just shift from some hands to others. I don't like power, including political power, but I dislike even more private power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
This is kind of going off topic but...anarchy does work,but on the small scale. Like a small community of a few hundreds or thousand, because you don't have enough bad apples to fuck everyone else over. But yes when we try to live in societies of millions of people, anarchy isn't very effective. In the end, we will always choose to enter what is called the social contract and give up some of our rights so that society has some semblance of order and basic equality.
We want so badly for bitcoin to be accepted in stores and such, but has anyone thought of this before? What's going to happen once everyone is using bitcoin?
Technically Bitcoin is not ready for such number of transactions, but good news is number of transactions does increase much slower than Bitcoin price, so a lot of time to work on this issue (hopefully).
Yep. There are a few technological issues to overcome. Luckily there are some incredibly smart people working on them as we speak.
We want so badly for bitcoin to be accepted in stores and such, but has anyone thought of this before? What's going to happen once everyone is using bitcoin?
Technically Bitcoin is not ready for such number of transactions, but good news is number of transactions does increase much slower than Bitcoin price, so a lot of time to work on this issue (hopefully).
Power never disappear it just shift from some hands to others. I don't like power, including political power, but I dislike even more private power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
We both come from different ends of an underlying paradigm. I believe that the vast majority of people by nature are good and decent creatures. You seem to believe that we are all savages and that only bureaucratic power stands between us and worldwide mayhem.
Power never disappear it just shift from some hands to others. I don't like power, including political power, but I dislike even more private power.
Private power is not accompanied by the unfounded belief of the masses that the powerful's edicts are legitimate.
Quote
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Maybe, maybe not. Armed bands may do such to some. Or they may not. Or the armed bands might meet their demise. Under our current system of social order, I am guaranteed confiscation of half my productivity. Plus, there is that entire messy business of being forced to comply to my overlord's irrational edicts.
Let us not forget that it takes a government to perform genocide. More than 100 Million killed in the 20th century alone.
Quote
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members.
"probably". In other words, you're just pulling assertions outta your ass.
Quote
Anarchism promises insecurity,
Government promises insecurity. Anarchy promises nothing - other than that one is free to live life on their own terms.
Quote
economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc.
Absolute twaddle. Governments today serve to _impede_ free trade. Scientific development? Riight. We'll suddenly all become incapable of thinking advanced thoughts because the government is not there to force us to think thusly.
Quote
It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
Always amuses me when statists whip this one out. Well, I guess it's the sharpest knife you've got. Fact of the matter is that Somalia is making improvements in nearly every quality-of-life issue at rates far exceeding their neighbors.
Quote
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
I don't know where you live. Can I assume USA? For the record, I am American. And I find the fact that the NSA is spying on all my communications an exercise in neither distant nor abstract power. For only one example of thousands.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Power never disappear it just shift from some hands to others. I don't like power, including political power, but I dislike even more private power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
Good explanation of why anarchy simply doesn't work... and those that think it can are naively idealistic, IMO. The founding fathers of America did their best to create a system of checks and balances which, for a long time, served to forestall the centralization of power. Their errors and oversights could be corrected to form a better system based on objective justice and the rule of law.
Power never disappear it just shift from some hands to others. I don't like power, including political power, but I dislike even more private power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
Without government, armed bands would take not half of what you have, but probably much more.
Some think they could organize and resist. Those organized groups would probably be very oppressive to their members, especially new members. And their resistance would endure only until faced with a stronger band. Anarchism promises insecurity, economic and trade collapse, end of scientific development, etc. It's that the situation we see in failed states. Somalia is the perfect example.
We could keep the State, but give large powers to small communities, like in Switzerland. There people assemble and rule their matters directly together, including social support, health care, decide regulations on social life, etc. So, basically, our neighbors would have a lot of power over us. Spying and controlling other people's life is a way of living there. No, thank you, I prefer an abstract, distant, power.
If Bitcoin does continue to be integrated into the world economy...then I don't think this process is going to be as volatile or dangerous as you think. The conversion of people to cryptocurriencies like Bitcoin is going to take place at a steady pace. So it's not like one day you will wake up, and find that your dollars are worth 10 times less. It will be a gradual process where people will continuously siphon more and more fiat into Bitcoin or other cryptos, slowly leaving fiat behind, until it is no longer needed. It won't *ruin* fiat holders because they will have already converted to Bitcoin by that point. Yes, the distribution of wealth will have changed a lot, but it's not like the Koch brothers will wake up one day and find out they've become bums.
Koch brothers believe in true money
The process may go fast and brutally when the world understand that so many dollars are going to be created
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
but it's not like the Koch brothers will wake up one day and find out they've become bums.
That would be funny. Like the duke bros. in trading places.
If Bitcoin does continue to be integrated into the world economy...then I don't think this process is going to be as volatile or dangerous as you think. The conversion of people to cryptocurriencies like Bitcoin is going to take place at a steady pace. So it's not like one day you will wake up, and find that your dollars are worth 10 times less. It will be a gradual process where people will continuously siphon more and more fiat into Bitcoin or other cryptos, slowly leaving fiat behind, until it is no longer needed. It won't *ruin* fiat holders because they will have already converted to Bitcoin by that point. Yes, the distribution of wealth will have changed a lot, but it's not like the Koch brothers will wake up one day and find out they've become bums.
If the government would disappear tomorrow, I think we know what would happen: most streets would be controlled by violent groups. We would living on a brutal feudalistic system in no time.
Please compare and contrast: your nightmare scenario, with; the system we have now.]
Government takes half of what I create, and forces me to certain behaviors. The only real difference I see in the above is that somehow, the masses seem to believe that governmental trasngressions are moral.
Freedom is a completely abstract notion. You are technically taking power away from the government by promoting Bitcoin, however you are in turn giving power to a select handful of people who have large holdings of coins. It doesn't give the power to collective society (if anything democratically elected governments do so on the behalf of the people) but instead some individuals.
No. The rich do not have the power to demand we act in certain ways, lest we be caged or murdered. Only the insane belief in the authority of governments leads to that power.
Will the volatility of bitcoin ever end?
The increase of its users will keep bitcoin's price going up. However, because supply and demand is controlled by human perceptions and emotions, after a huge boom in price it will always come a bust. Every overshooting of the price will be followed by a general perception that the price increased too fast and, consequently, by a drop.
For volatility to end, it would be necessary a general adoption of bitcoin that would limit further increases for lack of enough new persons to make a substantial difference in demand. But since the numbers of bitcoin are limited, that would also require or a stagnant GDP or a fractional reserve system based on bitcoin that would allow its banking numbers to artificially increase side by side with GDP. That won't happen for years. Volatility is here to stay for long.
I think this is a reasonable assessment. I agree that the volatility isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I think you're right that it will have to get to the point where the emotions of the crowd are not the driving factor on upswings or sell offs.
Volatility is going to be a big issue I think and I'm not actually sure if it will ever end.
It is like a body of water. The smaller it is the bigger the waves. As we add depth in the form of market capitalization it will level off.
... Because I doubt bitcoin will bring much prosperity, since it will establish a deflationary monetary system. ...
LOL at people that talk about deflation (falling prices) as a bad thing and inflation (rising prices) as a good thing.
A must see Peter Schiff video:
Deflating Food Package Sizes is Evidence of Inflation
Will the volatility of bitcoin ever end?
The increase of its users will keep bitcoin's price going up. However, because supply and demand is controlled by human perceptions and emotions, after a huge boom in price it will always come a bust. Every overshooting of the price will be followed by a general perception that the price increased too fast and, consequently, by a drop.
For volatility to end, it would be necessary a general adoption of bitcoin that would limit further increases for lack of enough new persons to make a substantial difference in demand. But since the numbers of bitcoin are limited, that would also require or a stagnant GDP or a fractional reserve system based on bitcoin that would allow its banking numbers to artificially increase side by side with GDP. That won't happen for years. Volatility is here to stay for long.
I think this is a reasonable assessment. I agree that the volatility isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I think you're right that it will have to get to the point where the emotions of the crowd are not the driving factor on upswings or sell offs.
Changed the wording of this paragraph to make it more clear, even if the reasoning is still the same.
The goal was to write the minimum possible, without affecting the intelligibility of the ideas.
I'm afraid perceptions on the price being "overbought" will never disappear.
Will the volatility of bitcoin ever end?
The increase of its users will keep bitcoin's price going up. However, because supply and demand is controlled by human perceptions and emotions, after a huge boom in price it will always come a bust. Every overshooting of the price will be followed by a general perception that the price increased too fast and, consequently, by a drop.
For volatility to end, it would be necessary a general adoption of bitcoin that would limit further increases for lack of enough new persons to make a substantial difference in demand. But since the numbers of bitcoin are limited, that would also require or a stagnant GDP or a fractional reserve system based on bitcoin that would allow its banking numbers to artificially increase side by side with GDP. That won't happen for years. Volatility is here to stay for long.
I think this is a reasonable assessment. I agree that the volatility isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I think you're right that it will have to get to the point where the emotions of the crowd are not the driving factor on upswings or sell offs.
Volatility is going to be a big issue I think and I'm not actually sure if it will ever end.
Will the volatility of bitcoin ever end?
The increase of its users will keep bitcoin's price going up. However, because supply and demand is controlled by human perceptions and emotions, after a huge boom in price it will always come a bust. Every overshooting of the price will be followed by a general perception that the price increased too fast and, consequently, by a drop.
For volatility to end, it would be necessary a general adoption of bitcoin that would limit further increases for lack of enough new persons to make a substantial difference in demand. But since the numbers of bitcoin are limited, that would also require or a stagnant GDP or a fractional reserve system based on bitcoin that would allow its banking numbers to artificially increase side by side with GDP. That won't happen for years. Volatility is here to stay for long.
I think this is a reasonable assessment. I agree that the volatility isn't going anywhere anytime soon. I think you're right that it will have to get to the point where the emotions of the crowd are not the driving factor on upswings or sell offs.
Jump to: